I use both in conjunction. Neither [alone] gives a complete picture of training load. And, at different points in my periodization, one may have more importance than the other. Just my experience so far.
Thatās what Iām saying though. There has never been any meaningful correlation with ctl, tsb, etc with where I perform well. So i just ignore them at this point.
what do i need to search to figure out this iLevels interval training and how to be structuring stuff? i know that they have a ton of youtube videos but donāt know what i am looking for.
1 Like
Depending on the depth of your knowledge in:
- Fatigue Resistance training (Progressive TiZ)
- Coggan Classic Levels vs Coggan iLevels
There are 3 videos that I would recommend (in this order):
Building Fatigue Resistance Strategy Into Training
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtBW4CIGiEU&t=1s
Webinar: New Metrics and iLevels in WKO4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTYE1VZewgc&t=1s
Individualizing Interval Workouts in WKO4
6 Likes
I will definitely be taking a look at these.
I just downloaded WKO5 for trial and having never used it or previous versions, the amount of info and format is a bit overwhelming.
On the other hand, my mFTP and power duration chart look beastly, so itās stroking my ego the right way 
1 Like
Yes! . . . and I suggest being patient about it. Just using the feature of being able to quickly create any number of time periods (fixed and relative) allowing you to gain deeper insights into the effectiveness of your training blocks would be a great start. And once you do that, youāll have a foundation from which to learn more advanced statistics, including TTE, FRC and Stamina, and their importance.
The educational videos on fatigue resistance and performance/training above FTP (and thereās lots more similar videos) will give you a deeper understanding of training and performing at a higher level, but they take time to fully absorb and decide whether and how to incorporate into your training.
1 Like
Has anyone using etap+Garmin noticed front gearing/shifting data is not translating correctly? I have it displaying correctly in a data field on the Garmin but in WKO and di2stats are showing goofy front data. Iām not even sure where to start with troubleshooting
Copy all that. But, if Iām not a fan of extremely structured training and just want to take a high level view, is there a simple way to look at FRC, TTE, Stamina and determine what type of general focus to have in my next block?
Iāve started in on the videos but donāt see myself going as deep as some of you all do into the info. My metrics are all trending up nicely so Iām apt to keep doing what Iām doing rather than over complicate things, but I like having the numbers all at a glance in the dashboard to evaluate progress.
Yup.
Do a gap assessment, look at your limiters, work those specifically in your training, and track progress.
For me, my PD curve while having a BIG Pmax (1651) and FRC (27.3) has an abysmal TTE and FTP. So Iām focusing on growing those. That means spending more time doing sweet spot (85-95%) long intervals short rest and touching up my sprint every two weeks only, rather than doing vo2max or short duration intervals.
1 Like
Yes [similar/identical to @RONDAL] . . .
Itās actually a reverse process, though, than I am interpreting your question: You start with an understanding of the requirements to perform well in your race/event goals and specifically what that translates into for metrics. Early season, for example, I wanted to be able to hang on our group rides (3-4hrs) and particularly on the long sustained climbs (20 to 50mins) resulting in my need to grow my FTP, and especially my TTE. Mission accomplished (3.0->3.6) and (32->65) through progressive Time-in-Zone intervals. FRC also grew (10->15), but that was not the primary focus at that point. Stamina, if I recall, remained flat at that time.
Regarding structured vs unstructured: Structured, of course, is more time efficient, but not necessary. What is necessary, though, is accumulating Time-in-Zone at the intensity level(s) to achieve results in your target races/events. WK05 makes this easy to do via weekly and monthly reports of Time in Coggan Classic Levels (what TR bases it training zones on) and Time in Coggan iLevels (introduced in 2015 to target individualized training levels above FTP).
1 Like
Watch these two minute tutorials, for a good introduction to the metrics WKO5 tracks: PMAX, FRC, mFTP, TTE, Staminaā¦ and to get an understanding of where these fit in on the Power Duration (PD) curve.
From there, thereās a bunch of recorded Webinars on youtube that Tim Cusick has done which delve deeper in to how to use them. Depending on your event (or style of riding) some will be of more relevance than others.
The interface of WKO5 is far cleaner than WKO4, and it should be pretty easy to get familiar enough with it just by watching the videos.
Iām quite new to it myself but the power and potential is mind-boggling. I can only see the software going from strength to strength.
Edit: Fixed the link to the two minute tutorials relating to the PD curve metrics
5 Likes
Ready to go on that rant, yet? (cloud vs on PC) 
Just another data point, my performance really started to improve once I started looking at the PMC and the difference aspects of the power duration curve, focusing on the demands of the events I was participating in. I see better performance when my TSB is just slightly negative. Based on this, I find it much easier to schedule my training plan weeks out from events, aiming to hit a near-term peak in CTL, followed by a taper that puts TBS slightly negative on Big Event day. I also find that too fast of a ramp rate in CTL can cause issues with fatigue, which hampers the rest of the training schedule.
Iām an older athlete, so I need to think more about recovery etc; I suspect I could get away with a lot more when I was youngerā¦
1 Like
My free trial is about to expire.
For what is worth, Iām sticking with Golden Cheetah. It looks like WKO simply rebranded the science behind the CP curve with their own nomenclature. Itās hard to justify the purchase when Golden Cheetah does everything WKO does, plus more, for free.
1 Like
Iām thinking about syncing ilevels to my Garmin once Iāve had a chance to do the power profile workouts in a few weeks. Would there be any potential unseen consequences to this when TrainingPeaks/etc will still use FTP and Coggan zones? With workouts that send from TrainingPeaks to the Garmin being based on a specific target wattage (% of TrainingPeaks ftp setting) rather than āzoneā, I canāt think of any reason using different zone systems would affect a workout as planned as long as TrainingPeaks ftp is set appropriately based on what your training plan expects.
Just double checking my thoughts before I mess around with it.
There is actually better science behind dFRC than there is Wā.
There were flaws in the general assumptions of Skibaās original CP model upon which Wā is based.
Further, the WKO team are open about the fact that far more goes into an athleteās dFRC on any given day than what the model can properly account for (things like rest, diet, stress, etc) and as such, the dFRC metric is kind of āpermanent betaā. The science is not nailedā¦ itās a guide.
Side note: I was heavily involved with the Open Source software movement in the late 90ās to mid 2000ās. I worked for OāReilly books as a proof reader on TCP/IP manuals and UNIX related books, worked with Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman on GPL activism, committed technically to Apache, Qmail and others projects). GC is a great thingā¦ but the interface and UX is typical of a GPL project, very cumbersome, inconsistent, noisy. Not worth getting into a flame war over, but I will choose an open source tool every single time if itās the best tool for the job. Faced with a similar decision between GC and WKO5, I decided to buy WKO5 (itās a big improvement on WKO4).
Oh? This is the crux of my issue. I canāt seem to find it. Maybe Iām looking in the wrong place. Tell me where to go look. Iād love to read a peer reviewed paper on dFRC.
Just to be clear, Skiba didnāt develop ātheā CP model. Skiba published peer reviewed, scientific papers on the reconstitution of work capacity above critical power. He called it āWā,ā which from what I can tell is exactly what WKO has rebranded as āFRC.ā
WKO isnāt āopenā about this; itās just common sense. The Wā balance (dFRC in WKO speak) is simply a function that tracks the dynamic state of Wā during intermittent exercise. Individual results will always vary based on factors, some of which are often unpredictable. Itās not that āthe science isnāt nailed,ā itās that the science doesnāt seek to account for the fact that you decided to ride fasted, or that its extra hot outside today, or that you are at higher elevation, or any of the other millions of individual factors that would ultimately render the model meaningless if included.
Mathematical models simply describe what they describeānothing more, nothing less. The question is whether dFRC describes anything new or different from Wā.
I donāt think it warrants a flame war either. This isnāt about Golden Cheetah versus WKO, or open source versus pay-to-play. I just have questions about the science behind the WKO charts and whether WKO is describing anything new for the $130.00 asking price. It looks to me like it does not, but Iām not positive because I canāt locate any scientific basis for their new terms. I would like to assume its the same as the Wā science, but WKO is trying really, really hard to distinguish itself from the concept of CP and Wā, so Iām left unsure.
1 Like
Okay just to make some distinctions here that I feel like are important:
-
Golden Cheetah uses the 3 point CP model to intersect relatively short duration maximal data (2, 12, 20) to derive a CP (which is usually around the 30 minute mark). Uses the Skiba model.
-
WKO uses all of your power data to derive your mFTP, where the curve is finding what is essentially the best fit. This is a custom developed black-box model by Coggan developed from a group of around 200(?) athletes.
These may seem similar on paper and display but they are not.
In backtesting of all of my years of data, Critical Power was just straight up wrong. WKO on the other hand was very right.
I have my criticisms of WKO (as I do every product ), but their power duration model is the best on the market right now. Period.
wBal/dFRC
- These are both built on the Skiba model and physiologically are not āsoundā models and can still be broken. dFRC is essentially a āBetaā so treat it as such.
Iām still waiting for someone to show me research about how wBal based training will do āXā, but I think that one is going to be a while.
3 Likes
I think this actually gets at the problem. As you point out the CP model is only accurate between about 7 and 30 minutes. Rightly so. Thatās why it works. It doesnāt try to connect a bunch of irrelevant data points like the WKO model.
By contrast, mFTP seems to include very short efforts; one and three second sprints, for instance. Yet, we know that one and three second power is totally irrelevant to one hour power because they rely on totally different energy systems. The fact that you can move the mFTP needle with a few sprint efforts suggests that the model has flaws, but we canāt be sure. As you noted, āitās black boxā so there is no deep dive into the math anywhere on the web. My understanding (correct me if Iām wrong) is that there is no peer review allowed because the formula is proprietary IP. I guess we are supposed to just trust that the model is sound becauseā¦faith.
CP cannot be āstraight up wrong.ā Itās simply a mathematical formula applied to a data set (in this case your power data). You can miscalculate; you can input garbage data, but the math itself is never wrong.
Maybe the problem is your data. Garbage in, garbage out. If you are āback testing all of your years of data,ā its important to remember that much of that data is worthless to the model. For instance, the criterium you smashed back in 2012 is probably not relevant to your CP in 2019. Try using the past thirty days of data with the two parameter CP model and see if it accurately describes your 20 to 30 minute power.
As far as I can tell its the only one on the market. Golden Cheetah is free.
I have. It doesnāt.
If you want to use CP to train, be my guest. I spent months trying to make it work for me and was unsuccessful despite putting lots of time and energy into testing using all of the prescribed protocols.
Good luck.
1 Like